Case Brief Case name‚ citation‚ and court Walker v. Quillen 622 A.2d 1097 (Del. 1993) Supreme Court of Delaware Key Facts A. Quillen owns a piece of land known as Bluff Point‚ B. Walker owns a piece of land close to Bluff Point where there is a narrow dirt ‘’public’’ road. C. Implied easement states that Quillen is entitled to cross over a portion of Walker’s land to access Bluff Point. D. Water access was not feasible for access to Bluff Point. E. Walker said
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Supreme court
Running head: Terry v. Ohio‚ 392 U.S. 1 Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 October 4‚ 2014 Facts At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon‚ while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes‚ Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times‚ pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route‚ the two men would
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
CASE BRIEF FOR THE WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA WINDSOR V. STATE OF ALABAMA 683 So. 2d 1021 (1994) Judicial History: Harvey Lee Windsor was convicted of capital murder under § 13-A-5-40 (a)(2)‚ Code of Alabama 1975. The jury unanimously recommended the death penalty and the trial court accepted the jury’s recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. Windsor then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Facts: Harvey Lee Windsor and Lavon Gunthrie
Premium Court Jury Supreme Court of the United States
title by registration rather than registration by title (Breskvar v Wall (1971) 126 CLR 376. * Indefeasibility- The registered proprietor holds the title free of all unregistered interests. S42 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW). * Registration of a void instrument confers immediate indefeasibility in the absence of fraud (Frazer v Walker [1967]] 1 AC 569. * Sir Garfield Barwick sitting on the Privy Council in Frazer v Walker described it as: “a convenient description of the immunity from attack
Premium Property Law Copyright
reasonably to enhance the contractual objectiveness of a case. Judges use the grounds of how a ‘reasonable’ observer would interpret the facts to determine whether the elements of a contract are evident within an agreement to then make it legally binding‚ and whether the contractual performance of the parties was acted in good faith. This in effect allows for more procedural fairness‚ taking into account all matters within judicial review. Within this case‚ Robb J reasons that there is a legally binding contract
Premium
Chester v Afshar - Case brief 1) Title and Citation Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 Plaintiff: Chester Defendant: Afshar Court: House of Lords Judges: Lord Steyn‚ Lord Hope‚ Lord Walker‚ Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann 2) Facts of the case Miss Chester‚ the plaintiff‚ suffered from low back pain since 1988. During 1994‚ Miss Chester was referred to Mr. Afshar‚ a neurosurgeon‚ who happens to be the defendant. The defendant advised the plaintiff to undergo an elective lumbar surgical procedure
Premium Appeal Surgery Law
Swan v. Talbot‚ Phelan v. Gardner‚ Marron v. Marron Case Briefs Jennifer Beverly PA205-02 Professor Byron Grim June 20‚ 2011 Case Briefs Citation: Swan v. Talbot‚ 152 Cal. 142 (Cal. 1907) Facts: George Swan‚ plaintiff‚ sold James R. Talbot‚ defendant‚ a portion of personal property. Swan was inebriated at the time the deal was prepared. The portion of the property sold to Talbot was valued at $21‚949.86. Talbot paid Swan $10‚604.32‚ this included $200 in coin that was paid to Swan
Premium Appeal
800. Number of References: 3. Case Study: Troy Walker v Viacom International Inc.‚ Nickelodeon Studios‚ Inc.‚ Paramount Studios‚ Inc.‚ and Stephen Hillenburg‚ the creator and Executive Producer of SpongeBob SquarePants. Troy Walker alleges that Stephen Hillenburg’s series SpongeBob SquarePants (SBSP) infringes the copyright of Troy Walker’s comic strip‚ “Mr. Bob Spongee ‘The Unemployed Sponge.’”. (Walker v. Viacom International‚ Inc.‚ et.‚ al Defendants‚ 2008) My case study is of an Intellectual Property
Premium
Procedural History: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant for fraud and breaches of warranty. Summary judgement granted in favor of defendant by the District Court. Plaintiff appealed claiming genuine issues of material facts exist. The Facts: Plaintiff bought a used car from Defendant‚ a used car dealer. Defendant offered no warranty‚ but told Plaintiff that the car had been inspected and was accident free. Plaintiff purchased a service plan through Defendant to be administered by a
Premium Automobile Law English-language films
Patrick Haines JLC 101 Prof. Edelson 9/11/14 Hawkins v McGee case brief Case Name: Hawkins v. McGee‚ 84 N.H. 114‚ 146 A. 641.(1929) Facts: Mr. Hawkins‚ the Plaintiff had undergone reconstructive surgery by Dr. McGee‚the defendant‚ in order to remove scar tissue on his hand that had resulted from an electrical wire accident nine years prior to the transaction. The procedure called for the removal of the scar tissue from his palm and the grafting of skin from his chest in its place. When asked about
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States Jury